Women are definitely choosier in early courtship and for low-commitment relationships. The differences are much smaller when it comes to committed, long-term relationships - and arguably the sexes don't particularly differ in that context.
As I put it in my book, the old slogan is that men will sleep with anything that moves, not that they'll marry or have kids with anything that moves.
Yep, there's plenty of evidence that early humans formed long-term pair bonds. This includes the fact that long-term pair bonds are the most common reproductive arrangement in hunter-gatherer societies: the kind of societies we lived in for most of our evolutionary history.
Some relationships in those societies are polygynous; I'm not suggesting that early humans only ever formed pair bonds. But most individual relationships involved only two people.
This is going to sound like a very dumb hypothesis but I’ll say it anyways. Could it be possible that romantic love evolved in humans because of mutual mate choice? I’m going to assume here that romantic love didn’t evolve for any other species, only for the sapiens (if it did evolve for any other species that doesn’t engage in mutual mate choice then my hypothesis is null hshahaha)
So maybe because human offspring are so costly to rear and thus require mutual long-term investment and attention, then this created an alley way for romantic love to flourish, creating the perfect breeding ground for romantic love to exist: two humans who are attracted to each other for a long period of time, isn’t that just what love is? Maybe I’m being too poetic and not scientific at all hshahah but does this hypothesis make any sense? Are there any studies that could back this or am I just spewing pseudoscience?
There’s an old saying which I have mangled that goes something like: “Men sleep with mostly anyone because tomorrow they can be somewhere else. Men will take a girlfriend because tomorrow they want to be in the same place. Men will take a wife because tomorrow they have nowhere else to go “
Interesting but it doesn’t seem strong. I could say male displays are to ward off competition, female displays are to gain resource.
In asymmetric investment sex situations the most successful female choice is always resource and the male choice is access.
Logically, social animals then add more to the mix. Females will select for bonding with other females for shared maternal care, while males will select for limiting other male access. Bonding is more likely to result in limited access, not just increased resource.
Male human peacocks interestingly are those imitating females IMHO.
I think it might be an oversimplification to assume that humans practice mutual mate choice by default, as implied in this article. While the argument for mutual mate choice in humans may be supported by factors like biparental care, genetic benefits, and cultural dynamics, it is also constrained by factors like sexual dimorphism, operational sex ratios, and the costs associated with choosiness. The balance between these factors likely explains why mutual mate choice may be observed but is not universal among humans. For example, sexual dimorphism and differing reproductive strategies can result in one sex (typically males) competing more intensely for mates while the other (typically females) remains more selective. This asymmetry can reduce the likelihood of mutual mate choice. Environmental factors like differences in male-to-female ratio can also lead to changes in mating strategies. A more nuanced argument would be to assume that both mutual choice and female choice exist but neither is universal in humans.
Are the selection pressures equal from men and women? My guess would be that while men are choosey, women are more choosey.
Women are definitely choosier in early courtship and for low-commitment relationships. The differences are much smaller when it comes to committed, long-term relationships - and arguably the sexes don't particularly differ in that context.
As I put it in my book, the old slogan is that men will sleep with anything that moves, not that they'll marry or have kids with anything that moves.
Not sure how accurate this is, but there’s the old adage that women choose who they sleep with while men choose who they marry.
Anecdotally it feels like there’s some level of truth to this, but I’m not 100% sure.
Is there any evidence for long-term pair-bonding in early humans?
That seems like a backward projected myth.
Yep, there's plenty of evidence that early humans formed long-term pair bonds. This includes the fact that long-term pair bonds are the most common reproductive arrangement in hunter-gatherer societies: the kind of societies we lived in for most of our evolutionary history.
Some relationships in those societies are polygynous; I'm not suggesting that early humans only ever formed pair bonds. But most individual relationships involved only two people.
For more evidence, check out some of the links in the post - in particular, my paper "The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock." There's a free version here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236629296_The_Ape_That_Thought_It_Was_a_Peacock_Does_Evolutionary_Psychology_Exaggerate_Human_Sex_Differences
This is going to sound like a very dumb hypothesis but I’ll say it anyways. Could it be possible that romantic love evolved in humans because of mutual mate choice? I’m going to assume here that romantic love didn’t evolve for any other species, only for the sapiens (if it did evolve for any other species that doesn’t engage in mutual mate choice then my hypothesis is null hshahaha)
So maybe because human offspring are so costly to rear and thus require mutual long-term investment and attention, then this created an alley way for romantic love to flourish, creating the perfect breeding ground for romantic love to exist: two humans who are attracted to each other for a long period of time, isn’t that just what love is? Maybe I’m being too poetic and not scientific at all hshahah but does this hypothesis make any sense? Are there any studies that could back this or am I just spewing pseudoscience?
There’s an old saying which I have mangled that goes something like: “Men sleep with mostly anyone because tomorrow they can be somewhere else. Men will take a girlfriend because tomorrow they want to be in the same place. Men will take a wife because tomorrow they have nowhere else to go “
Interesting but it doesn’t seem strong. I could say male displays are to ward off competition, female displays are to gain resource.
In asymmetric investment sex situations the most successful female choice is always resource and the male choice is access.
Logically, social animals then add more to the mix. Females will select for bonding with other females for shared maternal care, while males will select for limiting other male access. Bonding is more likely to result in limited access, not just increased resource.
Male human peacocks interestingly are those imitating females IMHO.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sufeitzy/p/mimesexuality-5-accessus-liber?r=o79yv&utm_medium=ios
I think it might be an oversimplification to assume that humans practice mutual mate choice by default, as implied in this article. While the argument for mutual mate choice in humans may be supported by factors like biparental care, genetic benefits, and cultural dynamics, it is also constrained by factors like sexual dimorphism, operational sex ratios, and the costs associated with choosiness. The balance between these factors likely explains why mutual mate choice may be observed but is not universal among humans. For example, sexual dimorphism and differing reproductive strategies can result in one sex (typically males) competing more intensely for mates while the other (typically females) remains more selective. This asymmetry can reduce the likelihood of mutual mate choice. Environmental factors like differences in male-to-female ratio can also lead to changes in mating strategies. A more nuanced argument would be to assume that both mutual choice and female choice exist but neither is universal in humans.